jump to navigation

Jesus was once an Unborn Child too April 25, 2011

Posted by Maddog in Politics and Law, Prolife Issues, RH/Abortion Bills.

Christ sanctified the womb and the innocent children who are its temporary residents. This artwork says it all.

Sadly, some of the proponents of the RH/abortion bill want to pretend that some unborn children aren’t even people. They say the fertilized egg must first be implanted in the uterus (which happens some three to eight days after conception) before it is considered a human life.

Some will even say that they become people much later than that. Worse, some even think they aren’t people until they emerge from the womb.

Worst of all, some don’t care at all whether the unborn are people or not — it’s supposed to be a “woman’s right” to decide to kill them or not!

Let’s not leave any doubt: abortion is murder (killing of the innocent).

Some contraceptives actually kill the unborn (for example, by preventing the fertilized egg — a newly-conceived human being — from implanting in the uterus. With nowhere to implant, the baby eventually dies. This is an early-term abortion.

Such contraceptives are called abortifacient contraceptives — meaning they can cause abortions.

HB 4244, the current number for the so-called “reproductive health/responsible parenthood” bill in the Lower House, will spend millions (or billions) funding these deadly abortifacient contraceptives. It should really be called the RH/ABORTION bill.

Abortifacients in HB 4244

Section 7, Access to Family Planning, of HB 4244 states:

All accredited health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, except in specialty hospitals which may render such services on optional basis…

Section 10, Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines, states:

Products and supplies for modern family planning methods shall be part of the National Drug Formulary and the same shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals and other government health units.

Section 4 Definition of terms (HB 4244) states:

Family Planning refers to a program which enables couples, individuals and women to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children, acquire relevant information on reproductive health care, services and supplies and have access to a full range of safe, legal, affordable, effective natural and modern methods of limiting and spacing pregnancy;

Take note that natural methods are differentiated from so-called “modern” methods. Obviously then, these modern family planning methods include artificial contraceptives (since they are not the same as natural methods).

Section 4 Definition of terms (HB 4244) states:

Reproductive Health Care refers to the access to a full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health-related problems. . . The elements of reproductive health care include:

(1) family planning information and services; . . .

Thus, artificial contracetpives will be funded by the bill.

The thing is, some of these contraceptives are abortifacient, as the Philippine Medical Association warned:

Doctors warn DOH on contraceptives

The Philippine Medical Association (PMA) has urged the Department of Health (DOH) to study the possibility that some abortion-causing drugs are present in inventories of the department’s family planning program.

. . .

“Life begins at fertilization, anything that prevents the fertilized ovum to be implanted in the uterus may be considered as abortive and therefore, if prescribed, may violate our solemn oath as physicians to save and protect human life particularly the unborn,”  said PMA president Dr. Oscar Tinio.

Larimore and Stanford (2000), in “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,” said that:

“It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical literature does not support the hypothesis that postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.

Just a note: “OC” means oral contraceptive; “COC” means combined oral contraceptive.

Anyone want to guess what a “postfertilization effect” is?



No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: